The point, about the French system is that the national budget is not balanced, and this is mainly due to the tax reduction, around 192 Billions of €/years that would have been collected with the old tax collection laws are not collected.

@chemphilian As a Frenchman myself, I vote Jean-Luc Melenchon, Front de Gauche, simply because Human comes before Profit in the Front de Gauche's programme. Now don't waste your time trying to explain your position and where you stand right now. A real left party does not exist in England. Therefore, English people don't understand that French communism has nothing to do or nothing in commun with Russian and Chinese communism. Indeed, French communist party always condemn Russian and Chinese communism. Now I'm not surprise of people's reaction in this country as soon as they hear the words Left Wing. After all, don't forget, american's hegemony has done a remarkable job by brainwashing millions of people around the world and England being American's allies, England is consequently an ideal watchdog and a lapdog and they always will be. American capitalist economy is catastrophic and a disaster at a global scale. They still don't get it today that the world economic problem they've imposed and ruled for decades, is not an immigration problem but in fact, a problem that is coming from bankers, traders and shareholders. Sharing wealth is not part of the american and English vocabulary.

@chemphilian As a Frenchman myself, I vote Jean-Luc Melenchon, Front de Gauche, simply because Human comes before Profit in the Front de Gauche's programme. Now don't waste your time trying to explain your position and where you stand right now. A real left party does not exist in England. Therefore, English people don't understand that French communism has nothing to do or nothing in commun with Russian and Chinese communism. Indeed, French communist party always condemn Russian and Chinese communism. Now I'm not surprise of people's reaction in this country as soon as they hear the words Left Wing. After all, don't forget, american's hegemony has done a remarkable job by brainwashing millions of people around the world and England being American's allies, England is consequently an ideal watchdog and a lapdog and they always will be. American capitalist economy is catastrophic and a disaster at a global scale. They still don't get it today that the world economic problem they've imposed and ruled for decades, is not an immigration problem but in fact, a problem that is coming from bankers, traders and shareholders. Sharing wealth is not part of the american and English vocabulary.

@chemphilian As a Frenchman myself, I vote Jean-Luc Melenchon, Front de Gauche, simply because Human comes before Profit in the Front de Gauche's programme. Now don't waste your time trying to explain your position and where you stand right now. A real left party does not exist in England. Therefore, English people don't understand that French communism has nothing to do or nothing in commun with Russian and Chinese communism. Indeed, French communist party always condemn Russian and Chinese communism. Now I'm not surprise of people's reaction in this country as soon as they hear the words Left Wing. After all, don't forget, american's hegemony has done a remarkable job by brainwashing millions of people around the world and England being American's allies, England is consequently an ideal watchdog and a lapdog and they always will be. American capitalist economy is catastrophic and a disaster at a global scale. They still don't get it today that the world economic problem they've imposed and ruled for decades, is not an immigration problem but in fact, a problem that is coming from bankers, traders and shareholders. Sharing wealth is not part of the american and English vocabulary.

To all Americans and Englishmen: As a Frenchman and a libertarian, I would like to remind you of the fact there are still a few civilised people in France who appreciate your company. In fact, I like it so much that I'll soon be joining you rather than relinquish 30pc of my wages in income tax alone. You may be beset with the same sort of rabid, economically-illiterate socialism we have right here, but, trust me, this is a far cry from frothing-at-the-mouth folks like guest-ilsmsam, and we have millions of those.

No, no, we absolutely don't need that. We need more social cohesion, more solidarity, no austerity, and more egalitarianism. That's what Mélenchon stands for, and being French, I'll vote for him and the Left Front movement next April 22.
Place au peuple!

You are completely right.
However, French people will never give up their privileges (well maybe when the state goes bankrupt but certainly not before). Therefore it is not possible to reform the country.
Just take a look at what happened during the pension reform:
The reform passed was all but ambitious (retirement age going from 60 to 62.. whilst the average retirement age in OECD countries is 65). Yet people took the streets, there were petrol shortages all over the country, and apparently just for the fun of it (many polls showed that 75% supported the people taking the street and immobilizing the country, although 50% agreed that the reform was a necessity, and no there are no 125% of french people in France).
Now from this, imagine a reform that would cut public spending :)

Although he will not win due to the absurd 2 round goldilocks effect hes not too left not too right Francois Beyrou of Pau has the qualities integrity and visoin required.I have no vote but he would undoubtedly be my choice who favour a gentelr less greedy yet realistic just Republic with enterprise hand in hand with solidarity.
Plus ca change mais toujours la meme chose.

Off course DSK or C Lagarde would knock spots of Hollande or Sarkozy who will both lead adivided declining 3 rs tier nuclear power power lacking Independence of UK Swiis or even theBrics locked for better or worse to the fate of Spain and Germany

People who hail from deeply inequalitarian societies have no idea of a simple concept: so-called "privileges", when they benefit the mass rather than the happy few and have been fought for, are called "rights". Privileges, by definition, benefit a minority.

Some rights may prove unsustainable (the burden of the proof being on their foes), and some privileges may be harmless or even useful.

But nobody should have the privilege of changing words' meanings, even though it has been a favorite ploy of the current brand of economists (in France, the language of management is now an Orwellian Newspeak where the word "social", once a marker of people-friendly measures, now embellishes cost-cutting or tax-raising at the expense of the poor).

So it should read "However, French people will never give up their rights."

On the world scale, French people are the happy few, therefore, they can be named privileges: No other countries offer such rights to their people (for good reasons) :)
But more seriously I was using the word 'privilege' to describe, in my opinion, rights that shouldn't be (if that makes any sense)

Never heard about La Boétie's (Montaigne's friend) essay on "Voluntary Servitude"? Slaves simply want to remain slaves and see no alternative (TINA).

Your approach is a perfect illustration. Allow us French to differ (even though I suspect you won't, and would visit your bleak vision of the world on us, out of sheer envy, if you could).

To answer in advance your all too predictable "TINA" preaching: we have no objection to market-powered economics, but don't want market-steered economics. The illusion that market-produced equilibriums are always optimal has been proven wrong in the last decades, with trickle-down growth exposed as the most shameless lie ever. Rational steering through regulation and democratically accepted economic policies (policy, a four-letter word in Newspeak) may, or it may not, yield better results in the short term, but at the very least it allows bleating consumers to grow (back) into citizens. And it allows for safety nets and social relationships which you see as privileges, like the gentry of yore saw as preposterous the idea that the lower classes should eat chicken or drive cars.

Please do not include all French people when you say 'allow us French to differ', I am also French yet I disagree with your vision (although my opinions are not widely shared in France)
I am no believer in a capitalist and liberal utopia, no systems are optimal. It would be foolish to say otherwise with the economic crisis we just suffered.
But I do not think you are asking the right question: Should everyone have, when needed, safety nets to enjoy? Of course! And I enjoy my rights (or privileges) like 'la sécurité sociale' as much as you do.
However can we afford it?
Personally I do not think so, Mélenchon wants to 'squeeze the rich' to redistribute wealth. But rich people can only take so much, at some point they will leave, and then what? Where will you get the money to finance public spending?
My point is: Mélenchon's program is based on the fact that the world can become an utopia where rich people willingly give to the less fortunate and all people are equals. That's why it cannot work.
I will leave you to a proverb my father once told me : " Si tu ne crois pas au communisme à 20 ans, tu n'as pas de coeur; si tu y crois toujours à 30 ans, t'as pas de cerveau "

As you well know Melenchon commands only a minority, and I'm not in it; he's in a fantasy world, which is OK most of the time but not at poll time.

In the view of the (ongoing) large scale diversion of real created wealth towards a minority, which was kick-started by the clueless Thatcherite gang, and has now been force-fed to economics students all over the world as natural and beneficial, there is little doubt that (a) a normally run economy still would have plenty of space to fund growing safety nets, on the basis of (inter alia) productivity gains; and (b) that those having been confiscated for good, with no hope of getting them back, we do have to exercise fiscal caution, like a household which just got swindled by a crook.

On markets, all I say is that the right balance between solidarity and prosperity cannot be achieved by leaving the markets roam free; like a bull in a field, they are neither good nor evil, but irrational and prone to stampede, and something has to be excised from them before they can be harnessed for the common good. Achieving that balance, rather than a black and white view, is the essence of social democracy, which is reviled in countries which don't have it (including France) and taken for granted in countries which enjoy it. No glamour in that approach, I'll grant you.

guest-illljii wrote:
"sorry for my poor english, the (?) express my doubts on the sense of the words i use"

On the contrary, may I commend (praise) you for being able to write in English: 99%+ of the (non-French) people reading this blog (& being so opinionated about France!) couldn't write half as well in anything other than their native language.

(sorry for my poor english, the (?) express my doubts on the sense of the words i use)

It's maybe hard to understand for anglo-saxon people but there is a real enthousiasm for Mélenchon and the Front de Gauche here in France. Communism is not understood in his historical manifestations (?) but as an ideal of justice and social freedom.
I perfectly understand that you disagree with his proposals but calling him a joker is a bit unfair. In France like evereywhere else in Europe inegalities and poverty have grown a lot. The crisis has inspired a lot of economical debates, and particularly debates on the pertinence of the current capitalistic system. Even if the french "medias" (?) hush up (?) every speech on possible alternatives. Tax everything above 360 000 euro is first a symbol : we can not tolerate that the "1%" (like say American people) earn billions while the "99%" have difficulties to find houses, employment, to maintain their health, etc. But it's above all a way to re distribute (?) the wealth of the country. The french PIB (wealth) is 4 time more than in 1980 and nobody have seen it (????).
Mélenchon wants also limit the differences of salaries in each company from 1 to 20... I guess it would shock you (and I enjoy it ;) ). Whatever you think, in a way or an other, because of the feeling of injustice of the people and particularly because of the ecological disasters (??) which will happen, the current economical system will have to change radically (?) in the next decades... You can refuse to see it. But i am convinced that it is inevitable (?), and i'm not alone in this way of thinking (?).
And about the present french election, i make a bet : Mélenchon will be in the second round (?) or at last more than 15%...

(and again : sorry for my poor english, i'm not as simplistic as those sentences are)

Because it would drive away most of France's investors. Leaving aside that is immoral for any man to give up 75% of his income, regardless how high that income is. Anything above 30% tends to confiscation, not taxation.

What you seem to be missing is the fact that Mélenchon is arguing in favor of a whole new kind of society instead of simply improving the current one. I don't see what is so immoral about wanting to prevent some people from earning more than €30,000 a month while the medial salary in France is around €1600 and about 15% of the population lives below the poverty line.
What's wrong with thinking that no matter what one achieved - or not - in one's life, the State should try to make life a little less unfair for everyone ?
Besides, what facts can you provide justifying that such measure would drive away 'most' of France's investors ?
I disagree with Mélenchon on a lot of things but I think your judgement relies on pure selfishness, I wonder what you achieved that you're so proud of that makes you think you ought to keep it all to yourself.

The kind of society Melenchon and people like him try to build doesn't work. I come from such a country from Eastern Europe and I can tell you it didn't work and we're still picking up the pieces after the experiment.

It's not the state's role to redistribute wealth according to one or another impressions of fairness or equality. Taking money from the industrious people who made them and giving it to society's lazies and have not's is immoral, because simply taking money by force is called stealing. Rewarding slackers and free riders trough the perverse incentives of the welfare state is even more immoral.

Thank you, but no, keep that society for yourself, I don't wanna have any part of it. I want a society were I can be greedy, work, and keep what I make.

First the inequalities in France, unlike in many countries of the OECD, have not risen between 1985 and 2008 ("Yet in an OECD study of 22 countries from 1985 to 2008, France was one of only five in which inequality did not rise" to quote The Economist directly). Moreover, those income inequalities are bigger in Britain, Germany and the US (basically every country also in the chart)
If you do not allow people to earn more than 360 000 euro (by confiscating every penny above that value) you are sending a signal that success is illegal.
Who then would want to create its company, work its a** off every day, fight against incredibly high social charges and taxes, finally have a profitable business; only to have its wealth confiscated?
You said the french GDP (PIB in French) is now 4 times what it was in 1980, I don't know.. It might be true.. but is that relevant? No. France has one of the slowest growth of all OECD countries which means that if the French GDP is 4 times what it was, the US GDP must be 10-20 times what it was in 1980.
The facts are: France is one of the more taxed countries in the world (42% of the GDP against an OECD country average of 34%) and is the country with the highest public spending in the world after Denmark. And don't give me started on the deficit (France has never balanced a budget for more than 30 years) and on the debt.
And what does Mélenchon want to do? Raise taxes and spend more. Allow me to be skeptical.
I am not saying that he will not do 15% because he is doing an incredible campaign and the fact that French people hate people that succeed in life (I am french myself so you cannot blame me for looking down on a foreign people) is definitely not helping.

Thank you! It's particularly right for Mélenchon which is a former "socialist" (that is to say the bigger left-wing party in France). He definites himself as "left" and refuses to be called "hard left" (hard left : Poutou or Arthaud, which want to nationalize every company (i'm a bit caricatural there)). And his proposals are almost a return to the capitalism of the "Trente Glorieuses" (1950's-1970's). But whatever, i think that the left ideas are in a way of great changing and renewal. I hope that english people will react too to the current unbearable socio-economical system.
You English people, find a Mélenchon and vote for him!

I add : I really appreciate the english press. The French medias think of themselves as "engaged" and think that they "analyze" the events, but in fact they only repeat banalities. I often don't agree with some conclusions in english articles, but as least they arent hypocritical. And they think above all of giving facts

It is tempting to think that the final results are written in advance - Mr Hollande will evict Mr Sarkozy - and therefore it is legitimate for Mr Melenchon, a left-wing Socialist rather than a leftist proper, to make himself heard in preparation for the legislative elections.

However he runs the (very slight) risk of ensuring the left's absence in the second round, and the (quite substantial) one of eroding Mr Hollande final score to an easly 51% or so, which would make him a President but deny him the legitimacy for the sweeping reforms needed.

No wonder Mr Melenchon is the darling of the conservative media, TE included.

See, that was a good analysis, similar to the article, but followed by a political chop at the end.

What in the article made you believe that Mr Melenchon was in any way a "darling" of anything?

It seems to me that a dramatic move in the polls by any of the three "second tier" parties would be covered by the entirety of the media, and is at the very least valid news for a blog focused on the French race.

You are being unfair to both Hollande and Blair with such comparisons. I can agree that Hollande isn't a "real" socialist, but after all, Blair was a openly supporter of Mrs Thatcher: I doubt very much whether Hollande is, either in public or in private.

There's no arguing with the likes of Leplanb (who incidentally chose as a pseudo one of the most infamous lies of the "no" campaign). If they don't get right away all they _pretend_ to _demand_, fully knowing they'll never be asked by the voters to implement their wild promises, they'd rather put up with Sarkozy or Bayrou or even Le Pen and go on sulking and enjoying the view (*) on their self-erected Mount Aventine. As long as luxury timepieces can be smuggled up there...

If the second round is Hollande-Sarkozy I really don't think that it will be a 51-49. And even less that Mélenchon would be guilty of it. This idea of an opposition of electoral interest between Mélenchon and Hollande is perfectly false, but the french media love to say it : because it's simple, because it brings suspense to the election, and because, even if they critised him a lot, they are very submissive with the current power.
In fact, i don't remember exactly the numbers, but since Mélenchon is growing, the total of the left voters is growing too. I believe that the left wing (Mélenchon+Hollande) has about 40-45% already, while Sarkozy has almost nothing except himself (only 40% of the voters of the "hard right" (FN) will vote for him and the center is in its majority for Hollande)...

Crossing fingers then, remembering that similar complacency led to fingers being bitten hard back in 2002.

Eroding Hollande's 1st round result would kill his momentum, ie the simple fact that many voters will rush to the help of victory. Not sure if the bulk of Melenchon's supposedly disciplined voters would make up for this. As for me, I'd rather have Sarkozy again (France can survive him, possibly by kicking him out) than a 51% Hollande, who would be hobbled by such a narrow lead and still would have to shoulder responsibility for the ensuing catastrophe(s).

As for the center it is a dead notion now, has been for decades, since its leaders sold it for 30 denarii worth of ministerial appointments. It is a suppletive force of the right, not very reliable and roundly despised. Forget Bayrou's fiery speeches and look at his spineless record!

The BVA poll contains more information than just the voting intentions. In particular, people were asked which issues would be the most important for them when deciding for whom to vote. This is what people said:

Then people were asked who, between Hollande and Sarkozy, is the more credible on those points:

On 8 of those points out of the 10, Hollande is judged more credible. The only ones where Sarkozy has a small advantage are immigration and safety, which are hardly at the top of people's preoccupations. It is of course possible that the recent events in Toulouse and Montauban may change people's perceptions somewhat, but on these qualitative issues Sarkozy is, according to the poll, a very long way behind Hollande.

Hence the comfortable lead for Hollande in 2nd-round voting intentions (though not as overwhelming as his lead some two or three months back).

Talk about disconnected elites: Ms Kosciusko-Morizet is not just Mr Sarkozy's spokesperson. She' only been on that job for the last month or so. Prior to that, she was a high-flying minister for sustainable development, with a portfolio encompassing (guess): == transport ==, which she had to resign from to join Mr Sarkozy's campaign. Go Mélenchon!

In France we have an image of English people and english politics as very "right-winged" (compared to us)... I'd really want to see what they would think if Mélenchon was elected (pure hypothesis). Are they really opposed to a "hard" left alternative? Is there a debate in the UK about capitalism and the current crisis? Is there interisting english heterodox economists (give me the names!) ?

In this blog our Paris bureau chief reports and comments on the race for the French presidency. The blog is named after the official residence of the French president, an 18th-century palace in the 8th arrondissement of Paris. Our election coverage is collected here.